Jeevan's Property Investment (Pty) Ltd v Reunion Cash and Carry CC (13342/2015) [2016] ZAKZDHC 48 (25 November 2016)

Jeevan's Property Investment (Pty) Ltd v Reunion Cash and Carry CC (13342/2015) [2016] ZAKZDHC 48 (25 November 2016)

The court found that the lease agreement between the parties terminated by effluxion of time on 31 December 2015. The respondent failed to prove any lawful basis for remaining in occupation after termination, as no valid renewal occurred; the purported renewal notice was not accepted by the applicant, and no binding contract arose. However, the applicant instituted eviction proceedings prematurely, before the lease had expired, and at a time when the respondent was still lawfully entitled to occupy the premises. The law does not permit eviction proceedings to be brought in anticipation of a future breach; the applicant must prove that the right of occupation has terminated at the time of...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZDHC 48
Parties
Applicant: Jeevan's Property Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Reunion Cash and Carry CC
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2016
Case Number
13342/2015
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Madondo DJP
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Termination, Holding Over, Offer and Acceptance, Counter Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Termination Holding Over Offer and Acceptance Counter Application

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeevan's Property Investment (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Reunion Cash and Carry CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to remain in occupation of the premises after expiry of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the law relating to eviction allows the applicant to anticipate the holding over of the leased property by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the lease agreement between the parties terminated by effluxion of time on 31 December 2015. The respondent failed to prove any lawful basis for remaining in occupation after termination, as no valid renewal occurred; the purported renewal notice was not accepted by the applicant, and no binding contract arose. However, the applicant instituted eviction proceedings prematurely, before the lease had expired, and at a time when the respondent was still lawfully entitled to occupy the premises. The law does not permit eviction proceedings to be brought in anticipation of a future breach; the applicant must prove that the right of occupation has terminated at the time of...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for an eviction order is dismissed with costs, such costs to include costs consequent upon the employment of a senior counsel.